One common bit of misdirection I see when the issue of unfairness in the divorce/custody process is discussed is the argument that men are voluntarily agreeing to the terms. How can the process be unfair if men agreed with the result? Just the other day commenter bonifacii used this argument when discussing the case of Hulk Hogan’s settlement (emphasis his):

…indeed, she got 70% of the money they had in bank (which actually translated to $7M – a pretty modest amount in celebrity divorces), but she got only 40% ownership in his companies (less than half) and no alimony. However this is a moot point because this wasn’t awarded by a judge – it was the result of settlement, and you can settle on whatever terms you want.

This seem to be typical in the manosphere – most of the things people got “a case for anger” is something which is either completely made up, or had nothing to do with the law. I’ve been a member of several forums for a while, Lack of credibility is what I see as the main issue with the whole manosphere.

Men are much more likely not to ask for custody. They feel culturally the kids would be better off with the mother, or they don’t want the responsibility of full-time raising the kids. Because of the hesitancy to ask for custody, judges have been convinced that the children are better off with mom. So the cycle perpetuates itself. If more dads asked for custody the courts would change their tune.

Now it all makes sense. If men would only ask for custody, they would get it!

So how were these parenting arrangements decided? Almost 9 out of 10 cases (88%) were decided by the parents themselves. Only 2% were decided by the courts through a trial and another 10% were decided by default. In those cases, decided by the parents themselves, 22% of the parents chose equal time. In the contested and default cases, only 5% of the cases resulted in equal time for both parents.

A reader with the handle Morrisfactor responded to the bolded section in the quote above:

The author might give readers the impression that child custody is amicably decided by the parents in Washington state when this is not really the case.

Washington REQUIRES a pre-divorc­e seminar, with divorcees attending separate classes. When I attended, a large sign was prominentl­y displayed at the front door which read: DO NOT FIGHT OVER CHILD CUSTODY, IT WILL HARM YOUR KIDS.

Since about 90% of children are in the care of mothers at the start of divorce proceeding­s, this message was clearly directed at fathers. The seminar itself repeated these tenants, along with a healthy dose of “abuse” warnings (all directed at men). I, and other men, left the seminar with the feeling there was no way we would get our kids – as the seminar apparently intended.

As shocking as his experience was, the problem is even more fundamental. Divorce and custody negotiations are what economists refer to as Bargaining in the shadow of the law. From the working paper No-Fault Divorce and Rent-Seeking which I also discussed in my previous post on divorce theft (emphasis mine):

This paper falls in a different strand of the literature that investigates the effect of unilateral divorce on transfers between divorcing spouses from a bargaining perspective. If only one of the spouses wants to divorce, spouses engage in ‘bargaining in the shadow of the law’ (Mnookin and Kornhauser, 1979), where the existing law becomes a threat point for one of the spouses.

This is so obvious it would seem not to need to be stated, but in fact as I have shown it truly does. Men know that the family court process is stacked against them, as do their lawyers. This gives their soon to be ex wife a huge advantage. She knows she shouldn’t settle for any less than what the courts are extremely likely to give her. This is made even worse in the cases where the husband is forced to pay for both sets of legal fees. Given this kind of situation men are being forced to “voluntarily” accept the best compromise they can for themselves and their children. The judicial process doesn’t need to be actually used for the gross injustice to occur.

147 Responses to Bargaining in the shadow of the law.

This is completely true: a good lawyer has an obligation to advise their client as to the realistic outcome in court, regardless of right or wrong, truth or fiction. A guy has to strike the best deal he can and it routinely is a raw deal.

disinformation is a feminist’s bread and butter. they see facts and they must outright contradict them, if it wasn’t for the lies, feminism wouldn’t have nearly anything they have been working towards.

Well, let’s see, after interviewing seven lawyers, I settled on the seventh one as he was the only one who didn’t tell me not to bother even asking for custody. I got interim custody and she got supervised access, thanks to the psychological evaluation requested by her lawyer. After $50k+ in legal fees over two years, she actually made a reasonable proposal. Of course she wasn’t out of pocket a red cent, being on legal aid. Which is of course why she could keep things going at considerable cost to me. And seeing as how I’m the sole financial provider for the kids, this is money unavailable for them.

I’m actually very lucky to have gotten her proposal, even after two years of full custody on an interim basis you wouldn’t believe the crap the judge (female, of course) said at the case conference. Basically, even though I had the kids full time and was their sole source of support, the judgette didn’t see why I couldn’t giver her generous alimony. And since she went to go and see another psychologist for a couple of hours for a standardized test that showed she’s normal, as opposed to the detailed report by the psychologist who’d seen her for two years and related specific occurrences and behaviours that she had herself related, the judgette said that it was all a wash and wouldn’t affect judgement. Oh, and the fact that the separation occurred when my ex was arrested and charged with three criminal and two civil counts didn’t matter one bit, because she got a suspended sentence with no time served and no criminal record. Of course, I’m sure everything would have gone exactly the same way had the situation been reversed and I had been charged, etc.

All this for what is considered a short-term marriage (under five years) in my jurisdiction, which is Ontario, Canada.

Oh, there’s much more to tell, but I don’t have that kind of time, I’ve got to work and raise my kids, while paying for all those wonderful people in the justice, child welfare and other publicly-funded racket who not only allow but ensure that great harm comes to children. I hope for their sakes they never need me to piss on them if they’re on fire, and for my sake I hope they do.

I did this. I gave her a pledge of $420,000 over the first five years.

I did it because I knew the courts would get me even worse, along with 100K in attorney fees.

In 2008 my ex-wife had me thrown in jail for not paying alimony, even though I did not have enough money. My income vanished (I was a Realtor) and the resulting “contempt” of me not paying offended my female judge greatly. The divorce machine has, thus, established a way around the law against a ‘debtor’s prison’.

Whilst in jail, I lost everything. When I got out, I had no home, no car, no job, no money, and no possessions (except for some clothes and my old laptop)

and I still owed every penny.

She’ll never get it now. Thankfully, she (stupidly) waived child support, and the alimony is all now in the form of a judgment. You can’t put alimony in a bankruptcy, but you sure can purge judgments. Next year, I’ll be free of an 8 year hell that has driven me into extreme poverty and made me a beggar. The ruin she brought me caused other judgments too, so my wages get garnished so much there’s nothing left to live on.

There’s only 42K left to pay, and still jail looms for it, with her relentless pursuit. I might even let them house me for a while (in jail) until I get to where I can file the Chapter 7.

I gave her custody of the kids, and the house too, of course, but when I was in jail she wouldn’t let my sons come to visit me.

My love for my sons is the only reason she still walks this earth.

I’d have never cut that deal if I thought I had a chance in hell in the courtroom.

We should expand this thinking to other areas of the law. Accused criminals aren’t taking plea deals. They are voluntarily checking into prisons. They just don’t want the responsibility of freedom and liberty.

Hulk Hogan contemplated suicide from the unfairness of it all. Yeah, that is a sign of a man happy with the settlement.

He also went as far as to say ‘I know how OJ felt’, given than Linda Hogan (that juggernaut of destruction that wrecked the Randy/Elizabeth marriage by whispering in Elizabeth’s ear) was using a house and car earned by Hulk to entertain other men.

Fanatical manginas like bonificii think that the ‘Law’ is the one God, and is never bad. Such people supported slavery all the way up to the very last day, and only reversed their opinion of the morality of it after the law was repealed.

On future mangina/feminist arrivals : I will not waste my time on one unless/until they have survived 3 days. About 95% of them tend to be mayflies that vanish in a single day, so that means most of them. I invite others to do the same. We don’t want one such irritant to tie down 5-10 of us for a full day. That time and effort can be used launching anti-misandry grenades elsewhere across the Internet.

One other factor…men often agree to even worse terms than they might get in court because wives have an incentive to drag things out. Often, until the final deal is made, the wife is in custody of the chlldren and living in the house. The husband is ordered to continue to pay his check into their joint account, to continue to make mortgage payments and the like. Meanwhile, as no permanent custody/visitation order has been entered, the wife can, and often does, simply deny him all contact with the kids. The longer this situation lasts, the broker and broker the guy gets, the crazier and crazier he get to see his kids at all, and social life and status is in total limbo.

Many States require efforts at mediation. Especially in crowded urban and suburban districts, there simply aren’t enough judges and courtrooms for the courts to do their jobs. So, they try to slough it off to the parties, and their lawyers. But if the “interum” situation is a good one for the wife, she has a strong discentive to be the least bit co operative in these meetings. She makes ridiculous demands and refuses to budge, or even escalates them. There she is, living in the marital residence with the kids on his dime, all without lifting a finger. The guy, meanwhile, is living catch as catch can whereever, his pay is going directly into an account from which she can draw, and he can’t see his kids except at her whim. Why would she try to be reasonable, under these circumstances? Indeed, she has a strong reason to keep things as they are.

Combined with this, as has been mentioned on other threads, wives often like the power of keeping the guy in limbo. As long as the divorce is not final, she can continue to create new ways of sticking it to him. Wives routinely over use their lawyers (which the guy is paying for, one way or another). They have them send nasty, but legally meaningless, letters, to the husband and his lawyer, accusing him of all sorts of nasty things. They file all sorts of bullshit motions and so on. Even when the impetus for the divorce came from them, in their endless female ability to see themselves as the victim. the want to “punish” the guy as much as possible.

Over and over again, I have seen this play out. The husband is constantly pleading for reasonableness. He accepts that the marriage is over, is genuinely looking to make a fair deal covering all issues with the wife, just wants to get the unpleasantness over with as quickly and in as dignified a way as possible, and get on with his life and re establish his relationship with his kids. The wife, on the other hand, plays the total bitch. It’s all about her emtions. Even though she filed for divorce, at every meeting she wants to “re litigate” the marriage…you did this wrong, you did that wrong, I am more than justified in seeking a divorce, blah, blah, blah. When none of this even matters anymore. Somehow, she sees it as her right to not only divorce the guy, but have him admit that she was right about each and every marital issue they ever had. And it doesn’t even stop there. I have seen wives going out of their way to make contact with her husband’s closest friends, and even his parents and siblings, and attempt to try to “prove” to them that she was/is in the right and he in the wrong. They seriously believe that the husband’s mother and father, and brothers and sisters, should, and will, take “her side” in the divorce! When it doesn’t work, they get added to her list of enemies. Often, grandparents and aunts and uncles will be included in her PAS campaign with the kids.

Faced with all this, the guy often caves completely, and gives her a deal not only that isn’t fair, but is even worse than the already unfair paradign deal that the court would have imposed if it did contest everything. So, it is not only the final court ordered outcomes that influence the settlements, but the slanted nature of the pre settlement proceedings and rulings too. That and the utter ruthlessness of women….

It was interesting dealing with Bonfacci, most of “his” arguments were factually incorrect, distorted, or just inconclusive. “He” just grew tiresome the more we debated. As for Samuel’s tale, just awful beyond description and a warning to all men. The more men that can be educated as to the real risks of what comprises modern ‘marriage’ the better.

You know Dalrock you could write an awesome book from the point of view of what you have learned and the learning experience that came with it would be very interesting. I thing even more so than a nonfiction text book of knowledge that many write on these type of subjects.

I didn’t really understand the point here. Since the case was settled, it is obvious that both parties felt that there is a reasonable change not to get what they want through the trial; a party which is sure they’d get the judgment for X typically won’t settle for X/2. If she was sure she’d get more in the trial, she’d just proceed with the hearing. So while the settlement is indeed the negotiation in the shade of law as Dalrock pointed out – it may be worth also pointing out that this is true for both parties, not just for a single party.

However there is another reason to settle, which is even more relevant for the celebrity or political figure who has a stinky skeleton in his closet. There is always the possibility that during the divorce hearing those skeletons will get out, and some dirty evidence would be introduced. The media would pay close attention to the case like that, and the resulted publicity may be devastating. It may be anything from cheating to hiding the income or sucking cocks in public toilets. The settlement allows this party to ensure those facts won’t be made public. Depending on the facts this may put much more pressure on the negotiations than any law ever would.

I didn’t really understand the point here. Since the case was settled, it is obvious that both parties felt that there is a reasonable change not to get what they want through the trial; a party which is sure they’d get the judgment for X typically won’t settle for X/2. If she was sure she’d get more in the trial, she’d just proceed with the hearing.

Of course you don’t understand. I’ll explain it, knowing that it will still escape your grasp. You made a wild claim that another commenter used an example which had nothing to do with the law. I quoted it above, but I’ll re-quote part of it here:

This seem to be typical in the manosphere – most of the things people got “a case for anger” is something which is either completely made up, or had nothing to do with the law. I’ve been a member of several forums for a while, Lack of credibility is what I see as the main issue with the whole manosphere.

I showed with ease that your point was pure nonsense. Then (as is your habit) you pretend the nonsense never occurred and go on trying to work another angle. Prior to this you claimed that no fault divorce didn’t occur until the 1980s, and the asserted that the lack of a spike in divorce since then proved that it didn’t encourage divorce. I shared a link to an academic paper which showed that no fault divorce occurred much sooner than you claimed, and that the massive spike in divorce in the 1970s was consistent with no fault increasing divorce rates. Then you made an absurd claim that if the laws were reformed women would just get their no fault divorces in Mexico, which as I pointed out is one of the more absurd things I’ve seen argued in quite a long time.

The only one who lasted longer was escoffier, who lasted a week or two.

I wouldn’t put Escoffier in the same category. He didn’t make asinine claims and then pretend he hadn’t after they were easily refuted. Escoffier strikes me as more of a clever silly. He is extremely sharp but lacks horse sense. This makes him difficult, but not a troll.

There are issues I really wish a slick lawyer would start to litigate…
The Female Judge nightmare…
I really think that men should appeal any decision given by a female judge, especially one that is lesbian, childless, unmarried.
Our Constitution allows for a jury of your peers, this too should be introduced to family law decisions.
I do believe that gay marriage is going to bring a revolution in family law decisions…it will compel the courts to actually look at facts like ability to pay, length of the relationship, the dynamic of the relationship, pre-marital assets etc.
Guys must start reporting violence and abuse by girlfriends and wives, and preferring charges, signing complaints, demanding equal treatment (read punishment) under the law.
Guy should begin to use the language of the feminist against them…fairness, haaaapiness, abuse, passive-aggressive…you know, all the liberal bromides.
Guys should also spy on women via their blogs etc…get to know their tactics, code words, battle plans.
BUT, until then, married guys like me live with the threat of “Samuel”…and it is with a benevolent heart that I advise the unmarried men to stay that way!

“Since the case was settled, it is obvious that both parties felt that there is a reasonable change not to get what they want through the trial; a party which is sure they’d get the judgment for X typically won’t settle for X/2.”

Perhaps not. But if X/2 is itself unfair, then the point still stands. No, a court typically won’t give a woman EVERY single thing that she could concievably ask for, no matter how farfetched. But it will give her a lot more than she deserves. That being the case, and to avoid the cost of litigation (both sides of which he will typically have to pay for), a man will settle a case even though the settlement is itself unfair. To use your style….perhaps the court will give her somewhere between 2x and 4x, when x would be fair. In such a case, both parties might settle on 3x. But that hardly means 3x is fair.

“If she was sure she’d get more in the trial, she’d just proceed with the hearing.”

Right, so if he offered x, or even 1.5x, she will say no. But if offers her 3x she might say yes, because she’s not “sure” she will get 4x and might even get as little as 2x.

“So while the settlement is indeed the negotiation in the shade of law as Dalrock pointed out – it may be worth also pointing out that this is true for both parties, not just for a single party.”

And that changes things how, exactly? Yes, they both negotiate in the shadow of the law, but the law itself is biased towards the woman. She is bargaining in the shadow of law that favors her, he is bargaining in the shadow of law that disfavors him. Thus, your attempt at equivalence is completely ridiculous. And does nothing to disprove the notion that the settlements are not really “voluntary” on the part of the husband, nor the notion that they don’t really represent what he considers to be fair, even though he “agrees” to it.

You might also want to consider my post, in which I go in to some detail explaining why women hold out for excessive demands and actually delight in dragging out the proceedings. Which, of course, puts even more pressure on the man to give in and accept a settlement which is not fair.

“There are issues I really wish a slick lawyer would start to litigate…
“The Female Judge nightmare…
“I really think that men should appeal any decision given by a female judge, especially one that is lesbian, childless, unmarried.”

The problem here is that appellate courts are loathe to get into family court decisions. First of all, family court cases are mostly “fact based.” The law involved is of a general nature, leaving lots of room for interpretation and application. Appellate courts are mostly courts of law, they typically accept the “Fact finding” of lower courts, unless it is palpably wrong. Secondly, family courts typically have what is called “plenary” power. That means that they can pretty much order any damn thing they want, and the appellate court won’t disturb the ruling. Finally, no appellate court would give more than the back of its hand to any appeal based on the mere fact that the family court judge was a woman, was childless, was a lesbian, or was not married. That kind of broad based claim of bias goes nowhere. You have to show actual bias, not merely the possibliity or even probablity of it.

“Our Constitution allows for a jury of your peers, this too should be introduced to family law decisions.”

The Seventh Amendment requirement for jury trial in certain civil cases only applies to the Federal government. Family courts are State courts, and the requirment for jury trial in a civil case has not been made applicable to the States. Jury trials might be a good idea, but there is no Constiutitional basis for demanding them.

But isn’t the big reason for not fighting is first and foremost if you can afford it, like you said. But also don’t most states make it so that if you fight for control of the kids AND LOSE you’re basically out of luck for ever fighting it in the future? I feel like I’ve seen a couple writings that make a case for waiting for the woman to self destruct, show herself unfit as a mother in some manner, and THEN take it to court to fight with that as evidence.

But isn’t the big reason for not fighting is first and foremost if you can afford it, like you said. But also don’t most states make it so that if you fight for control of the kids AND LOSE you’re basically out of luck for ever fighting it in the future? I feel like I’ve seen a couple writings that make a case for waiting for the woman to self destruct, show herself unfit as a mother in some manner, and THEN take it to court to fight with that as evidence.

(also Dalrock, I can’t seem to post as Leap of a Beta using my my other email. Am I getting caught on your spam filter or is something else going on?)

[D: I’ll check the spam filter. I’ve been doing a good job of letting new comments through, but just noticed there are 90 in there. 99% are surely spam, but your kind of case comes up as well.]

In the inquisition heretics were burnt at the stake, one of the most horrible ways to die. If they admitted they were guilty they were strangled before the flames were lit. Same kind of deal the men are taking in divorce court.

At least Boni has caused the production of this worthy post by Dalrock. So he was a partially useful complete idiot.

Escoffier is around and about, and calling him a troll would be unjust (IMO), he makes some interesting comments from a viewpoint that mostly overlaps the generalised view here. At the moment he seems strangely concerned about some parts of game, my solution was not to read those parts of game that I didn’t agree with / did not want to use…his is to post about them on his blog. Alek Novy is another guy that seems beyond rationally anti-game. He’s a nice guy, working hard for the cause, I just don’t understand the level of reaction to game. There’s no point arguing because all the points have been made by both sides, so you are where you are on the issue and that is that (AFAICS).

What is it about Game that makes it such a huge issue to some men?

Take what you want, leave the rest, use free sources not ones taking your money – end of story…or so I would have thought.

Allow me – as a Lawyer – to explain how things are from the point of view of the Lawyer. In acting for the man I would be encouraging him to settle if at all possible. There is no point holding out for what you are not going to get, and the longer the matter proceeds the more expensive it gets for ones client. The client who will not see reason and fights to the bitter (and it is going to be very bitter) is almost always making life considerably worse for himself. As a man you are not going to be awarded custody of the children unless the mother is entirely incapable; the assets are going to be split equally, no matter who did the work to make the money to acquire them. That is the basic position and it is from there that one starts, and not with an attempt to redefine the law according to ones personal or MRA beliefs. I award (in this matter) judgement in favour of Dalrock with costs against Bonifacii (to be assesed). Next case please.

Samuel, I’m Sorry to hear what happened to you in your marriage. Its a stark reminder of the dangers men face under marriage 2.0.

It kind of puts into perspective the comments of one entitled “traditional” woman blogger called “charming dissarray” who accused men of “cowardice” for refusing to marry under the current laws and refers to Manosphere bloggers/commenters as “those silly men” for expressing their anger/concerns with the current setup.

I thought it might be helpful if I added something to what I said above. Lawyers make money from working and so one might be surprised by my assertion that a lawyer would want his client to settle if at all possible. The reason is this: (As a Harvard lawyer I worked with in the States put it) ‘No one wants a reputation for losing cases’, but worse; the client who wants to fight the hopeless case to the end, will, at its termination then turn his guns (no matter how pointlessly) on his own lawyer – no one needs that. This really only applies to Civil Litigation and Family Law – Criminal Litigation is a somewhat different matter.

Women do panic near final date. My lawyer told me in his experience MOST women who file divorce panic near final date, because as the poster above outlined they have the same life, minus “the jerk” during the process, and for Christian women, the have added the law to their personal Jesus as authority with which to manage the husband.

One anecdote I liked. I was living in an apartment while I was in divorce process, met a man who lived above me for the same reason. His divorce came to the date for making it final, they had a last meeting with the judge, it was literally to have judge sign off on the numbers in the agreed split, it was administrative only. The wifes lawyer asks for a delay of the hearing, judge asks why, he says he hadnt had time to prepare, judge holds up financial documents and asks, “prepare for what?”…..lawyer says they have more information that will inform the asset split, judge got pissed and said something like look, we are here to sign off and end this, there will be no delay, wife starts sputtering and wanting to argue, judge says something like “Ms, if you think by bringing more information in here Im going to declare on behalf of the state that your husband is a horses ass, its not going to happen”

When i talked to me lawyer about that he laughed and told me yep, never heard it put that way but thats perfect, in addition to the fear of losing control when the divorce is final, they have some burning need to hear some authority agree that they made the right decision in filing the divorce, the want to feel, well, empathy, from the court.

I agree. I find grinning at the idiot using that language irrritates them far more than getting angry. Even better, after grinning for a few seconds…a gasp and a shocked “you were serious about that? What’s in it for the man?”

Manginas / WK and women never seem to have done two things (or, at least two)
1) place blame on any woman for anything
2) consider the man as anything but a tool to be used for their big plan for society (read women)

My wife (the divorce was not final until about a week later, so technically still my wife – just) said she wanted to have my children (as in new kids!).

My reply that I did not want kids with her seemed to upset her. We were one week from final divorce and THEN she decides she wants to have kids with me!

The only reason that my divorce was pretty much pain-free (financially speaking) was that she was too stupid to do things properly; get preggo THEN split up. Ironically, this lack of intelligence was the reason I had long decided that I didn’t want kids with her, so when she walked out, I filed for divorce (to her utter shock – she wasn’t good at thinking things through).

Divorce and custody negotiations are what economists refer to as Bargaining in the shadow of the law.

And which laymen call “extortion”.

I think this method of bargaining is similar to the leadership women seem to ask for – tell me to do what I have already decided to do.
When it comes to bargaining, they have already decided what is fair, but they need your “agreement”

Every time i want to have my faith in humanity destroyed, obliterated, eviscerated, etc.. i just come to Dalrock’s. :)

It’s so true.

When i was forced to say “We’re getting a divorce” to my wife (after pulling away, after the sex dried up, after the ‘I love you but im not in love with you’ speech) i too understood the whole ‘shadow’ effect Dalrock spoke of. I offered my wife an offer of split that was giving her MORE than she should ever have been entitled too but LESS than what the court would nail me to the cross for if it went that route. It became a tightrope negotiation of how much can reasonably add/subtract without sending her over the deep end and into the arms of a greedy soulless demon (lawyer) who would delight in raking me over the coals. In the end I probably fared off much better than most horror stories i’ve seen in the sphere.. but let it never be said that i ‘agreed’ in principle with what i gave up in the settlement. The ever present threat of coercive force and life damaging repercussions was loosely wrapped around my neck, just waiting to see if i’d pull the lever and hang myself. In legal parlance.. my separation agreement was formed under ‘Duress’. Kind of like having the law standing behind you with a gun pressed to your skull, hammer cocked and whispering in your ear ‘This is a good deal.. take it before she changes her mind and then you have to deal with me!’

But i’m much better now.

I also checked out that manning up article.. so much wrong with it. Seems all these copy paste job articles can’t seem to derive the obvious cause and effect conclusions. Tho i say to the mass media, keep bringing them up! The more articles that come up, the more commenters correct their nonsense and the more people who are not aware of the red pill or the mansphere will be introduced to an awakening.

In fact there should be a rallying point to link to and comment-bomb every article like that that comes onto the internet as a means of educating men outside the current reach of the sphere. Use the articles themselves to get the message to the masses of sleeping sheep.

Thanks for the laugh this morning. This reminded me of my X. Because the disconnect between what my X thought would happen and what really happened was huge.

She thought:
I would wait around and never file for divorce
If we got divorced we would still hang out and go on weekend trips as a family
Her married boyfriend would dump his wife and marry her

The reality?
I filed and she was shocked, then angry
I quickly put an end to any dreams of trips or hanging around drinking beers and such. She was angry
Her married boyfriend dumped her within 2 weeks of our divorce being final.

@TFH At this point, I would not recommend that a man get married OR have children. With the world today, its a fucked-up place to try and raise a kid. Further, while I like the idea of the surrogate mom and ‘beating the system’, as it were, I’d prefer for my sons to have a good mother.

At the very least, if you want to have kids, GTFO of the USA and get down to South America or EE, where the people don’t have stars in their eyes, or dollar signs, and really just want a traditional happy life, and have been taught by older generations of traditional women HOW to be a woman.

As for the future of my ex, she is so disgusting and fat now that it is far more cruel to let her live, so I allow it. She is so disgusting it is unreal. 5 foot 2, 180+, greasy complexion, and a 25 yr smoking habit (even though she has asthma. Dumbass.) Let’s just say that she looked a lot better at 22 yrs old. Father Time has been kicking her ass. Hilarious.

But what if women knew that this sort of inequitable attack could very likely bring about their murder? What if a woman knew that killing her was very much an option for the court-raped ex-husband? Especially if she reduces him to nothing, and he has nothing left to lose?

What if men banded together to get some good vigilante justice on each others’ hellish ex-wives?

Vigilante justice can be quite legitimate.

When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

We can’t rebel by “not paying”, they’ll just lock you up. You can refuse to get married (again) and you can even make protests in great blogs like this one….

but really… a woman who robs a guy so thoroughly… she is a threat to his very survival. How am I supposed to fucking EAT??? Food and shelter??? It nearly becomes a kill-or-be-killed scenario, in which killing the woman who is ruining you is truly self-defense. What other choice do we have, but to lay down and die, or rise up and fight?

Women should watch the fuck out. This sort of retaliation is coming down the pike.

I once read a story of a 90 yr old man whose wife had died in a fall at the Grand Canyon. On his death bed, he confessed that he simply pushed the bitch off.

“…in addition to the fear of losing control when the divorce is final, they have some burning need to hear some authority agree that they made the right decision in filing the divorce, the want to feel, well, empathy, from the court.”

“My wife (the divorce was not final until about a week later, so technically still my wife – just) said she wanted to have my children (as in new kids!). My reply that I did not want kids with her seemed to upset her. We were one week from final divorce and THEN she decides she wants to have kids with me!”

Yep. And I have heard of cases in which the woman, after initating the divorce, being a total bitch throughout the pre final process, demanding everything under the son, running a PAS campaign on the kids, having her lawyer send nasty letters to her husban, etc, etc, say, at the very last minute, that she would like a reconciliation! Or admit that the whole thing was really just a “shit test” on her part, and is now disappointed because the husband did not “fight harder for her!”

“But isn’t the big reason for not fighting is first and foremost if you can afford it…”

Sure, if you can’t afford the litigation, then you probably have to settle, hopefully not for something too much worse than litigation would have produced.

“But also don’t most states make it so that if you fight for control of the kids AND LOSE you’re basically out of luck for ever fighting it in the future?”

Yes, that’s probably true. But fighting it out usually won’t get you a worse deal than settlement.

“I feel like I’ve seen a couple writings that make a case for waiting for the woman to self destruct, show herself unfit as a mother in some manner, and THEN take it to court to fight with that as evidence.”

I think this is a dubious strategy. As you just mentioned, when something is decided the courts like to keep it decided. And while divorce cases might be technically “open” even after made “final,” the courts don’t like litigants who hold back during the “proper” time to make their case, and then come back later with demands, even if the facts have changed. Indeed, the strategy that I have seen advocated for men who hope to gain custody is to fight everything up front. To take physical custody of the kids, if they can at all do it, and not relinquish it unless ordered to by the court. Same with the marital residence. Don’t move out unless compelled to by law. Don’t agree to anything on an interum basis that puts him in a weaker bargaining position down the road. Play hardball on all of her demands. In fact, what I have seen recommended is a strategy of pre emptive strikes. Accuse her of unfitness right at the start. Demand pyscho evaluation of her. Claim that you are the primary care giver and that she has neglected her motherly duties. Etc, etc.

What usually happens in divorce is that the guy moves out. This leaves the wife in “temporary” custody of the kids and in “temporary” possession of the marital residence. But what is temporary tends to become permanent….”Why did you leave the kids in her care, Mr. Husband, if she is an unfit mother? And, it seems the kids are adjusting fairly well, so let’s not have them undergo more trauma by moving in with a different parent. And, since she is getting the kids, she should get the house too, to maintain ‘continuity’ for the kids”…..This is what you are trying to prevent by going for a more aggressive strategy.

[Let me apologize in advance for going off on this tangent]
Dalrock – ”He didn’t make asinine claims and then pretend he hadn’t after they were easily refuted.”

It’s now a somewhat temporally distant situation, but…

There was once a poster who frequented The Spearhead who went by the name null [others there believed that the same individual had also trolled Roissy’s site under another name (Tokyorose, or something similar), who behaved in much the same way as you now see this bonifcci doing here – outlandish claims, then feigned ignorance.

As to that poster, I was not alone in my belief that it was a woman (who denied be a woman), who necver-the-less was to later reveal to Alte on the blog she was running before Traditional Christianity that she was, in fact, a (culturally/born into it) Moslem woman (and not a native English speaker*), who just enjoyed the ability to be disruptive, to derail discussions, and to get men all worked up.

Now, I have no way of knowing for sure, but my suspicions over the past several days have been that bonificii may well be the same individual (null).

I got caught up in going round-and-round with null on The Spearhead, and although it may mean absolutely nothing here, I’ve noticed that this bonificii had chosen to not respond to me (using the same name as on The Spearhead). I’m wondering if it isn’t just coincidental that bonificii seems to be (selectively) ignoring me [for the record, it’s not a matter of me feeling left out or having my male ego bruised by being ignored, but a sense that this bonificii is ignoring me more out of a sense of familiarity.

Maybe I’m completely wrong about this, but it’s just the sense that I get.

TFH is absolutely right, trolls like this, whether or not I may be mistaken about the identity of this one, should not be engaged until they have been posting for a meaningful length of time (perhaps their idiotic and even poisonous ideas can be dismissed by “talking around” them, rather than addressing the troll directly?), or until they make some legitimate contribution to the argumentation.

Throwing out things like the claim that Hulk Hogan (Terry Bollea) must have been happy with the settlement his lawyers convinced him to enter into (despite the well known account of his contemplation of suicide, and that Linda Bollea subsequently has gone back to try to secure a greater portion of the businesses than the agreement originally gave to her), is certainly quite provocative; and I can understand why others would be so quick to take that bait (frankly, because I’m as guilty as anyone on that matter), but it does only tend to encourage the trolls to continue.

It was certainly true of null on The Spearhead, and whether or not this bonificii is, or is not, the same person, it will likely be true here as well. If we feed the toll, it will stick around.

Please return to meaningful discussion, ignoring the trolls attempt to insert more BS.

[* Brendan, who is extremely knowledgeable and insightful noted that he did not believe that bonificii was a native English speaker either.]

At least Boni has caused the production of this worthy post by Dalrock. So he was a partially useful complete idiot.

Letting him spin for a while and having the heavyweights respond did have value. I’ve seen the argument that one troll like him can pin down several very sharp minds for days. I hear this, but the flip side is we are very far outside the mainstream thought on an issue that isn’t allowed to be argued anywhere else. To some degree we need someone to play devils advocate. We need this to avoid falling into the trap of hubris that so many others do, especially the socon feminists. What he demonstrated is that while he desperately wanted to prove us wrong, he had absolutely no idea how to go about doing so. Every new comment was sheer foolishness, so much so that one might suspect he was a sock puppet custom made as a sort of straw man generation machine. But I think he was truly the real deal, he just hadn’t ever really thought the issues through.

It is worth restating that most readers on the internet don’t participate in the discussion. So while it is true that he managed to distract some very sharp commenters, some much larger number of readers who read because the topics are interesting but may not be fully sold had the benefit of seeing just how difficult it is to refute what we are arguing. While I wish we could have someone much more up to the task filling the role, letting someone like him go on for a bit does have real value. Besides, I always hope that someone like him will stop being such an ass and actually engage in a real discussion if allowed enough time to recognize that even if he isn’t sold on our point of view, we at least are very difficult to dismiss.

Oh and thanks for banning “him” Dalrock. “He” was such a tedious, disingenuous wanker.

TFH – ”In Medieval England, many condemned prisoners (whether they actually committed a crime, or were merely dissenters) were sentenced to the horrific punishment of being drawn and quartered.
If they begged for ‘mercy’, they were beheaded…”

Certainly a most apt analogy.

The best counter to the to claim that men are “happily” and “willingly” entering into the most onerous divorce settlements that I can imagine. Good work on making the reality so very apparent.

Opus – ”Allow me – as a Lawyer – to explain how things are from the point of view of the Lawyer. In acting for the man I would be encouraging him to settle if at all possible. There is no point holding out for what you are not going to get, and the longer the matter proceeds the more expensive it gets for ones client.”

This is an important reality to note (for the benefit of whomever might be reading).

To simplify, for men going into a contentious divorce, it’s best to try to “cut your losses”.

And, as this is the best advice, as painful as it is, it is also a cautionary tale for men not yet married to consider.

“Indeed, the strategy that I have seen advocated for men who hope to gain custody is to fight everything up front. To take physical custody of the kids, if they can at all do it, and not relinquish it unless ordered to by the court. ”

This is a large part of what my lawyer said, and as I noted above it worked. There also seems to be a big bonus to being the one to take the initiative in court, i.e. filing first, which is where many men seem to fall down as they seem to wait and let her do it, maybe hoping it will never happen. In addition, any spurious accusations she would bring up regarding violence, abuse, etc., are best dealt with pre-emptively. If she brings them up first you’re basically screwed because it will be accepted at face value. If you started off and made your own factual statements (backed up by witnesses, etc.) first, and her accusations are seen as a reaction to that then you might be able to survive that nonsense.

“”Why did you leave the kids in her care, Mr. Husband, if she is an unfit mother?”

This is a very important principle. You will be judged by your actions, whether the court, child services, etc. If she is not fit or you have concerns, you must act accordingly throughout and be seen to take the appropriate measures.

But what if women knew that this sort of inequitable attack could very likely bring about their murder? What if a woman knew that killing her was very much an option for the court-raped ex-husband? Especially if she reduces him to nothing, and he has nothing left to lose?

My folks were friends with a couple when I was a kid who had daughters around my age. One day the wife got unhaaaapy and decided to divorce. She destroyed him in the process and one day he snapped, shooting her with his service revolver (he was medically retired LEO). For some reason the jury didn’t buy his claim that she shot herself twice while cleaning his revolver, and he ended up doing hard time (as he should have). This left his two daughters to grow up with neither a mother nor a father. I have a huge amount of sympathy for those poor girls. They weren’t the ones who were at fault, but they paid a massive price.

Given the horror stories that one hears around here, it has always surprised me that more ‘final justice’ doesn’t occur. Is it hushed up? Labelled as murder / suicide with any mention of impending divorce removed?

“There also seems to be a big bonus to being the one to take the initiative in court, i.e. filing first, which is where many men seem to fall down as they seem to wait and let her do it, maybe hoping it will never happen. In addition, any spurious accusations she would bring up regarding violence, abuse, etc., are best dealt with pre-emptively. If she brings them up first you’re basically screwed because it will be accepted at face value. If you started off and made your own factual statements (backed up by witnesses, etc.) first, and her accusations are seen as a reaction to that then you might be able to survive that nonsense.”‘

Exactly right, if you’re going to fight, take the initiative. Be pro active not reactive. And, yeah, as ridiculous as it might seem, if you let her make her accusations first, no matter how unfounded, your accusations against her, no matter how well founded, will seem like efforts at deflection and evasion. It’s kind of like a brother and sister having a fight, and then running home to tell their parents. The first kid to get there is in better position. He/she will frame the story. His/her accusations will be lodged first and will make the first impression. The second kid, usually, will be seen as “trying to get out of it.” And of making tit for tat allegations. So, yeah, if you’re gonna fight, file first, accuse first, keep custody of the kids, don’t move out of the house, don’t give her anything, don’t agree to anything, etc, etc.

“If she is not fit or you have concerns, you must act accordingly throughout and be seen to take the appropriate measures.”

If a man attempted to have his fiance sign a pre-nuptial agreement in the last 24 hours before the wedding, with the threat that he’d leave her at the church if she refused, I seriously doubt any court of law would uphold the agreement in the event she signed. It would clearly be a case of someone signing an agreement under duress and he would likely be friendless. Nobody would want to support such a jerk.

Interesting how the much more extreme situation of a man bargaining with his estranged wife in the shadow of the law isn’t regarded as being under duress, isn’t it?

That fellow needed to plot better. I wouldn’t just “snap”, and go to jail. I would plot, so that she was gone, and I got everything, including my kids, and kept my freedom. I’d have an airtight alibi.

Yes, it’s a shame for the kids to lose a parent, and that’s why my ex still lives. But if they are going to lose a parent anyway, through alienation, I’d rather have them be with me, than with the irrational, unaccountable, fully deluded poisonous psycho that will debilitate my kids.

Man, I don’t want anyone to die, for goodness sakes, I only want fairness. But since fairness is not on the menu, and its winner take all, we are faced with losing all (we sure as hell aint gonna win in court) or we have to find our own way to win. Or all is lost…

I guess I would like to think that at least if the womyn FEARED mortal retaliation, maybe they’d rethink their crimes, and stop destroying us. They are brazen, and that adds to the insult.

Just as you respect a dangerous machine on a jobsite, for its power to either really help you or brutally maim and kill you, we should be respected for our inherent danger too.

If you go kicking that machine around carelessly without understanding its basic power, you’re bound to get sucked into the blades eventually. Of course, womyn wouldn’t know much about that either.

I was lucky; I got away from my marriage without kids. At the same time, the ex was very angry and vindictive during the first several months following the separation (I was the one who filed and left) and subsequently dragged out the dissolution process for a long time. We finally negotiated a settlement without attorneys which on the surface was favorable to her, but it was actually my calculation that had I obtained an attorney to enforce the 50% split in court, I would have ended up with about the same amount of money anyway. There was no give on her side until the very end when the realization came to her that if she wanted any more from me, she was going to have to fork out for an attorney and risk getting less than she did. Essentially, her desire for the money won out over her desire to see me eat dirt. But it was close… too close for comfort.

So negotiating in the shadow of the law it was… On principle, it was an unfair settlement, but on the practical side, I got to move on after limiting the financial damage.

A friend of mine did manage to win without pre-emptively filing and such, but the circumstances may not be easy to duplicate. His wife had filed, taken the children and left while he was out of the country. Her new boyfriend was a known druggie. My friend begged and borrowed, scraped up a few thousand dollars and gave most of it to her, saying that he was worried about his children’s welfare and thought she could use it. A day later he called in an anonymous drug tip that there was dealing at her apartment. The raid netted enough drugs and money to make it a dealer charge, his ex and her boyfriend went to jail, and he swooped in to grab his children (timing was critical there, had to get in before CPS). An order of protection went through, and then he petitioned for full custody based on his ex’s behavior and got it.
I had a good marriage, but there are ups and downs in every relationship. My wife did threaten divorce once, knowing that she had the advantage there and believing that I would cave in. I explained that I would ensure her life was not worth living by any method, fair or foul; I would go to Hell for my actions but she would wish she was there before I did so. She believed me, which was good for both of us.

Given the horror stories that one hears around here, it has always surprised me that more ‘final justice’ doesn’t occur. Is it hushed up? Labelled as murder / suicide with any mention of impending divorce removed?

Maybe Buck would know the reality?

After 30 years in LE, all I can say is thank God for infidelity and intoxication, without them I’d be out of a job.
I’ve seen lots of relationship violence. When we classify a crime as a homicide or suicide we always document possible motives, but I don’t know that that information is charted by outsiders for future reference. The classification though is HOMICIDE, or SUICIDE.

What I’m about to write is going to look insensitive, BUT these are just MY observations.

Latino men are very prone to respond with murderous violence on cheating partners, but they are notorious players themselves…caution: girls contemplating a Latin lover. The aggrieved men routinely take out “her” new loverboy too.
Latin women love to call the police on mates they want to be rid of, and they will whine and make shit up until they hit the magic combo of alleged abuses to get what they want..they are very convincing liars and will happily see a mate arrested, but seldom actually follow through with the court cases. Latino women LOVE alpha/thug men, a tattoo and a rap sheet are Latino panty removers. I’ve seen an unusually high incidence of incest with Latinos , mostly siblings.
I cannot think of a Puerto Rican woman who is not divorced. On the divorce risk-o-meter, PR’s have got to be the worst choice a guy can make. They are very good at using the family law courts to shred men too..CAUTION!…But yes, when young they are intensely hot women.

Blacks are prone to severe beatings but usually don’t follow through with the courts. We consider them professional victims of domestic violence. The black community tolerates an unbelievable amount of infidelity and domestic abuse as seemingly normal.
The swath of destruction that is the black domestic scene is truly heart wrenching. I have profound respect for black men who try to make a go at traditional family life…their children have no idea how lucky they are.

Non-Filipino Asians are seldom involved in violence.

Hillbillies and white trash are the most violent and their women are the most depraved. When it is an off the charts case that would make Maury/Jerry and Phil blush, you can bet it’s some toothless white trash. One of my first cases was a woman who blew herself up making a pipe bomb to take out her husband.
I had an officer with a malfunctioning duty pistol…upon inspection “someone” placed a wrist watch battery in the pistol action blocking the trigger from working ( folks, this required disassembly of the gun, and minute placement of the battery…this was absolutely no “accident”…we called an evidence technician and took pictures), another had his gun’s chamber unloaded, and another had his gun superglued shut…what did they all have in common…honey was cheating on them! (think about that for a moment…cupcake is cheating on him and SHE is trying to get him killed !!!!…WOW!!!).
I’ve seen brake lines cut, beatings then house fires to cover up murders, staged burglaries to clean out the house, hired hit men, suspicious drug overdoses, there is nothing more dangerous than bored white people.
I admit, I’m actually surprised at the lack of violence considering the outrageous court decisions against men. “Samuel” has voiced the feelings of loads of men, who think about “it”, but do not act on their daydreams.

What Ive seen the most though is men wallowing in self pity and turning to the bottle/drugs after getting divorce ass-raped and dying too young with shattered lives all around.
Women tend to bounce back from screwing over men quite rapidly…BUT father time always does a nice hatchet job on them. I’ve been around long enough to see generations of little tarts and their demon spawn and their spawn grow up and believe me, father time always takes his revenge on trampy women.

Hurp – ”Do you think it’s just Hispanics living in the U.S who have those problems, or Latinas in Latin America generally?”

It’s a bit more complex than simply their Latino heritage at work, although that most certainly plays some role.

The more recent Latino immigrants (to the US and Canada) tend to be those who were the economically disadvantaged in their home countries, who immigrated (legally or otherwise) looking for work and/or welfare. This will mean that they are most likely of lower intelligence than their peers in their homelands, and more like the “White Trash” Buck alludes to. They will tend to settle into “communities” that, if you will pardon my flippant use of euphemism, are “on the wrong side of the tracks”.

Female hypergamy will tend to have different markers for “status” based on the circumstance of the places in which women live. In the trailer park, the Barrio, and in the Ghetto, a man who has a job, even a decent job, is not necessarily going to be seen as the hypergamously driven “choice”. He may be seen as having some status as a provider, but his ability to provide is not likely to be enough to lift a wife and children from that socio-economic level. Nor is a guy who is a decent human being going to be seen as the guy who offers the best “protection” in such an environment.

Sadly, in such “economic communities” the more violent thugs are not only going to be seen as the best protectors, but also as the men who are most likely/most able to secure significant amounts of money so as to allow them to move (themselves and their women) into more upscale locales (usually owing to their better success in criminal endeavors, which tend to be much more profitable than hard work for minimum wage).

Thus, the hypergamy seen in such situations is going to be skewed towards thugs-as-alpha, rather than high-earners. I tend to think that our frequent anti-Game poster eric lives in such a lower socio-economic locale, due to his utter insistence that ALL women ONLY seek thugs. His view is likely informed by his observations, which, over on the “wrong side of the tracks” would be what one would tend to see in the highest SMP women gravitating preferentially towards the thugs.

Now, if one were to go to the Latino countries, although the middle and upper classes are smaller in proportion to what we have here, the women are more likely follow the patterns of women in those same classes world-wide. This may be shifted moreso towards the more outwardly aggressively alpha man, due to innate tendencies noticed in Latino women, but markers such as confidence, style, and earning potential will tend to outweigh markers of (irrational) violence that reign supreme in the lower-classes.

Buck – “I’ve seen lots of relationship violence. When we classify a crime as a homicide or suicide we always document possible motives, but I don’t know that that information is charted by outsiders for future reference. The classification though is HOMICIDE, or SUICIDE.”

I would venture that one thing that creates the illusion of (a seemly of) a lack of marital-breakup violence is the lower rates of marriage amongst those in lower socio-economic groupings. You probably see plenty of violence related to relationship disintegration (often involving infidelities).

it seems to me that the the sort of men who are most likely to be blind-sided by divorce are men who also tend to be decent human beings who are less prone to violence in the first place.

But, still, one can count on regularly seeing stories of murder and murder-suicide relating to divorce situations in the news. It’s not the norm, but it does occur in a significant number of divorce cases.

ymb – “Actually this has been studied at length by sociologists and unless you are the leader of a gang or a producer of meth, you statistically make less money than minimum wage.”

Perhaps I didn’t emphasize that correlation between lower socio-economic status and lower intelligence enough. Woman living in those lower socio-economic strata are unlikely to Google research on the subject (and are unlikely to understand the study outcomes if they did), and rely almost exclusively on direct observation. The guy on the low rung of the criminal totem-pole may not make much when calculated over time, but is likely to have sudden influxes of cash, which would appear to the not-so-bright as an indicator of the ability to secure money.

And even so, I did note that it is the most violence prone of thugs who would be most sought after anyway. They are the ones most likely to rise to the top of the criminal enterprise heap, and to be able to remain there (by being the ones who employ violence most readily, and most effectively).

“Men know that the family court process is stacked against them, as do their lawyers. This gives their soon to be ex wife a huge advantage”

the truth about “family law” is actually much worse

during the Eighties i watched women grads of our feminist universities awarded plum jobs in court administration (based on their wonderful femaleness) while women lawyers began pouring out of law schools (theyre your new “judges” now)

they re-wrote the court rules for family “law” across amerika over the next 2 decades, vastly deepening the matriarchy

if you guys knew the reality of the “people” that run the EXTREMELY profitable family-law firms, youd understand better why the Sistem is so full of hatred for boys and men, esp fathers

as bad as family law is — and it is soft tyranny, make no mistake — criminal “law” in the u.s. is even worse — little more than an excuse to persecute, fleece, and degrade middle and lower-class males, as part of the West’s frantic drive to “put men in their place” for their millions of years opprressing women etc

want to understand what the u.s. justsis sistem is really about? go to yr local courts and watch the (putatively) male lawyers bow and scrape before Big Mammy Judge — it’d turn the stomach of a man, if there were any men left

i’d say 70 percent of the men at any time in the county jails are there directly at the behest of some women; these men are guilty of being male, period, and their punishment has nothing to do with Serving and Protecting society, and everything to do with empowering women and enriching fat-assed punks who sport badges and pat themselves on the back as the “good guys”

there might be two or three guys in the local lockup right now who are actually immediate dangers, and they are usually certifyably psychotic or drug zombied — the rest are there essentially for being male in the Womans Nation

ten minutes with a PD who tells you plead out to whatever bullshit the Sisterhood charges, or you go back into the refrigerator for six months . . . they’ll do whatever they want, and they make damn sure you know it too

family law or criminal law, the game is the same: men are singled out and preyed upon one-by-one b/c the Sisterhood State and the male lackeys who serve it know that men have no collective power

amerikan men are too busy looking out for Number One to care about the sinister shit done to other guys . . . plenty of new toys to buy, house needs a new roof, daughters need college education funds and ten grand for the wedding

family and criminal law in the u.s. is predatory and evil — have nothing to do with it, and most importantly do not profit from its gleeful destruction of masculinity and fatherhood

it’s better to live in a cardboard box on sunset blvd than support what’s being done to amerikan fathers, boys and men under cover of “justice” and “law” enforcement — they will answer for their profitable persecution of good men, yes Eric Holder that means you too, the day will come when you’ll wish you had picked lettuce for a living, and you’ll have lots of company

It really is an excellent study. The sociologist lived in Chicago with the Bloods for a couple years while he did the study if I recall. A good summary of his findings are in the book Freakonomics the chapter is “Why do drug dealers always live with their mother?”

Curious, anyone know if there are any success stories of men changing the locks on a woman while she’s away and not letting her back into the house?

I’ve heard nightmare stories of men ‘finally allowed to go on the camping trip with their buddies’ only to come back to changed locks and a suitcase on the lawn. Then the woman gets away with it because the courts don’t want to “put the kids through any more trauma” type bullshit.

Any evidence that something even close to the same works as men trying to preemptively act against a suspected divorce filing?

I don’t know if you will find this interesting, or just disturbing, but, on the subject of violence related to marital break-ups, it seems like there is a story out of Boston about an officer shooting another before taking his own life, and (…drum roll please…) it looks like the investigation is taking a turn towards the suicidal officers wife having cheated on him with the officer he shot.

It’s not always a matter of the cheated on/blind-sided by divorce guys going after their wives, but also going after the other guy instead. (I’m sure we will be hearing about how women who’s husbands kill their lovers are the REAL victims)

“Curious, anyone know if there are any success stories of men changing the locks on a woman while she’s away and not letting her back into the house?”

I did. When my marriage started falling apart we had a big blowout one night and I sent her to her grandmother’s house to “think” for a couple of days. While she was gone I changed my bank account and the locks on the doors.

Prior to that, when we were discussing separation one night she told me about a recurring dream she had. She said she was worried that if we got divorced that I would come over and shoot her, the kids, and her boyfriend (Keep in mind I was NEVER violent with her. EVER. In marriage I was a complete beta.) My response was that if we were divorced she was just being silly, if not… After repeating it to her three times and leaving the consequence unstated, her response was simply “Got it”. I’ll never forget her tone.

And up to that point I had NEVER given any indication of “If you do this, I’ll do…” She came up with it all on her own.

I guess laying in bed every night dry firing my Glock 20 times at the light switch, reloading my own ammo every chance I got, and going to the range every weekend and bringing home silhouettes saying “Look at my groupings honey” got through to her.

People underestimate the value of crazy.

And some women DO understand cause-and-effect, you just have to draw the right picture.

Perhaps you ought to get Athol (married man sex life) to write an article on pseudo-psycho game? It looks like it worked for you quite nicely (congrats). It’s not like you could have persuaded her that her projected fantasies were inaccurate anyway, so might as well play along with her – women be crazy.

If you think about it, a guy could probably go to his local club and get some used targets (no need to go to the expense of buying a gun, just tell her that the club lets you store it at the range). Very cheap technique, and a hilarious one.

“as bad as family law is — and it is soft tyranny, make no mistake — criminal “law” in the u.s. is even worse — little more than an excuse to persecute, fleece, and degrade middle and lower-class males, as part of the West’s frantic drive to “put men in their place” for their millions of years opprressing women etc

In a democracy, the people get the Government they either ask for or tolerate.
I am assigned to attend “community” meetings where the cops listen to citizen complaints face to face. The local politicians always send their people to listen in and report back to the pol. The average “community” in attendance are senior citizens and their complaints are all quality of life, public nuance issues…illegally parked cars, barking dogs, party houses, shit birds hanging out on street corners, graffiti, speeding violations, thump thump music blaring from cars.
Cops work in two ways (patrol officers this is) we have self initiated field activity or response to radio assignments… BOTH are controlled by the public..you call us, we respond OR the local politician directs us to focus on a recurring citizen complaint/problem, or fund raise via petty ordinance enforcement.
Do you ever wonder why it is the FBI arresting mafia types and not local LE?…because the mob reigns in their people. They don’t cause public nuisance issues…out of sight, out of mind.

The TeaParty phenomenon has caused shudders in the hearts of politicians and changed the conversation here in America. The constitution is being discussed, the size and scope of Government is being reviewed…THIS IS GOOD! and it’s all because joe six pack is finding his voice. Hell, even the occupy wall street people have my sympathy. I know many are dupes funded by Marxists, but there is also a large number who are asking legitimate questions about the evil cabal that is the crony capitalism.

As a cop, I can tell you, I don’t hang out much with my fellow cops. I think many of them are badge heavy a-holes. I think there are too many cops in America, WAY overstaffed. BUT we cops are held to a much higher set of rules than our fellow citizens (not whining, just saying) For instance, if I’m arrested for DV, I’m fired, Dui, Fired, if I get in a tiff with a neighbor, they can call my Dept and I can take suspension time or get fired ( any action on or off duty that brings discredit to the Dept…what ever that means). If I forget to renew my license plate I get the ticket and suspension time, if a cop makes a racist or sexist comment on their facebook they can be suspended or fired, my locker, car, personal property at the police station can be searched anytime without cause, I’m subject to random drug testing..piss hot…fired, they order me to live in town I work…get caught living out of town…fired!
I know a guy who got in a very minor fender bender, he offered to just pay the other guy cash for the damage, the other guy noticed the badge in this wallet, claimed the cop tried to bribe him and the cop was charged, by his Dept, with official misconduct ( a felony) fired and spent thousands in legal bills to stay out of jail.
Every day, when I show up for work, I risk EVERYTHING…if some convincing liar decides to make shit up about me, or I’m compelled to act and a jury, 5 years later, decides I made a split second decision that offends their sensibilities. Or some bump with HIV spits in my face, or I’m doing crowd control at a fire only to find out later the plume of smoke was toxic, or it’s 20 below zero and I’m standing in an intersection directing traffic because the signals are out, or the distraught divorcee stands in front of the train and I get to spend a few hours picking up body parts and placing them is a bag so you kids don’t see it and are scarred for life, or I get to notify the parents that their kid was killed in a car crash…And of course I seldom get to spend evenings, weekends, holidays with my family…like everyone else.
Again, I’m not crying…I raised my right hand and accepted this position KNOWING full well what I was signing up for…but lumping cops in with lawyers, politicians as ( “cowardly vampires”) …yeah, sure!

I wish my fellow Americans would hit the streets, polling places, community meetings and raise holy hell about the oppressive nature of the new, socialist America. I have policed by a motto my entire career…order through law, justice with mercy…

I think that all too often some of the guys in the Manosphere get a distorted view of law enforcement based on the bad acts of a relatively few (a sort of Apex Fallicy itself). And, even when it comes to those officers who are just doing the job they are assigned (and pledged) to do, the same guys fail to try to put themselves into the officers shoes and to try to understand what that officer is up against, both as a sworn officer of the law and as a man who is likely to also have a wife (or girlfreind) and family,

While there are some officers who are simply brain-washed White-Knights, empowered by the state to act in accordance with their female-pedestalizing tendencies, and even some who are just bullies with badges, they are not representative of everyone in law enforcement.

There are plenty of good men, men with consciences, and men who do understand that men are systemically disadvantaged in society who also wear the badge. They don’t look forward to having to arrest men for allegations of DV nor date-rape. They are required to do so. They’d often prefer to arrest the women (if they must arrest anyone at all), but they know full well the sh*t that will hit the fan if they haul cupcake in instead of the guy.

This extends into the ranks of prosecutors as well. My own introduction into the world of Men’s Rights was greatly hasten by my wife’s (a long-time prosecutor) detailing the abuses of the court that she and her fellow prosecutors routinely witness woman perpetrating upon their boyfriends and husbands (even the decidedly feminist prosecutors all know and openly acknowledge that it is quite normal for a woman to falsely accuse a man of DV or some sexual impropriety in cases where child custody will be an issue).

Those who are in law enforcement are, as you note, help to much higher (personal) standards than are other citizens.

My own belief is that those of us in the Manosphere who care about men and men’s issues ought to encouraging LEO’s (especially the men) rather than condemning them as so often is the case. Most of them easily understand the pitfalls that they as men face, in no small measure becuase they realize that the penalties are likely to hit them even harder should they mess up, or be falsely accused. Even the gung-ho White-Knights who spend some time doing actual police work, and dealing with the public, come to recognize that there are plenty of women who deserve to be in jail rather than on pedestals, women who fully deserve their sad plights, thanks to their own choices, and that there is no “man” who is to blame for the choices that (some) women make.

These men might be our natural allies, if only we (collectively) weren’t so prone to heap scorn upon all of them because we have focused on the actions of but a select few.

a few years ago I used to read some of the UK cop blogs and what struck me was that the bloggers had a pretty good grip on what should be done, but they were strangled by bureaucracy, targets and quotas. Their ‘management’ were completely driven by paperwork, reports and what the newspapers would say.

I’m perfectly happy to believe that there are good and bad cops, the problem is not knowing which you can trust.

Hillbillies and white trash are the most violent and their women are the most depraved…. a pipe bomb to take out her husband… an officer with a [sabotaged] malfunctioning duty pistol…I’ve seen brake lines cut, beatings then house fires to cover up murders, staged burglaries to clean out the house, hired hit men, suspicious drug overdoses, there is nothing more dangerous than bored white people.

TPTB better make damned sure that the economy doesn’t get worse, then (if it’s even salvageable). If legions of currently working whites with machine shop skills, auto-repair capabilities, engineering degrees, etc, find themselves out of work and blaming the government for it…. who knows what can happen? There is nothing more dangerous than bored white people.

Disenfranchised, desperate, and learned white people would not only know how to do more damage, they would also be motivated to do so.

Ummmm…. that was exactly my point. Put the master mechanic, or the petroleum engineer, in the same down and out position as the trailerfolk… bored, angry, time on his hands… and they will but extremely dangerous.

But based on the sagas of sabotage that Buck describes, it seems that even the white trailerfolk seem to be considerably more technically competent than the other groups. This accords with my own admittedly limited life-experience of such people. Imagine a guy with a physics degree put into their shoes….

fair enough. I thought you were focusing primarily on just the one who were bored – as distinct from those who were angry and desperate. I misinterpreted your use of “bored” as representing those who would simply have accepted their fate, and felt that they nothing better to do with their time.

You are aware that you’ve basically created a situation (in word) whereby NO ONE could ever NOT fail, do you not?

One could either “uphold”, or one could “violate”, but they are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive. Thus, under your paradigm, no matter which one chose to do, they would be going counter to your desire.

Rmaxd – “As always fuck the cops”

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I would disagree. I believe that we (men) have enough enemies already. No need to create new ones. I’d prefer to wait until specific individuals engaged in specific misandric activities before condemning them. Smearing a entire class of people with a broad brush seems to me to be the same thing that both gender-feminist and the Trad/SoCons do.

What vision of society do you desire?
Mad Max?
L.A. during the Rodney King riots?
London last summer?
Paris two years ago?

Really…lets play your game of hate.
Poof…all signs of Government and authority are gone…you drive to work and it’s every one for him self, there is no “right” side of the road, traffic signals mean nothing; your home burglar alarm is now meaningless as no one is responding…your boss says fuck it, I wont pay anymore…who’s gonna make me…as you go home a local thug thinks to himself, I wonder what it’s like to watch a person die so I’ll just shoot the next person who walks by…bang…your neighbor decided to dump his raw sewage in the street, your banker just takes your savings account for himself, the postman steals your mail.
Please help me, describe your Nirvana.

Oh, and if you are if you are a smoking hot blond, sitting behind your computer screen, then by all means “fuck the police”..we would appreciate it.

“Family court judges who deprive children of access to their fit parents are child abusers. ”

That is an obvious fact that I have documented over and over again on this blog, and so have many other angry dads. American free speech allows us to tell the truth about what govt officials are doing. I hope Dan posts his appeal papers and wish him the best of luck.

I also don’t see how it can be a crime for him to write about the grand jury hearing if he was being charged with perjury for his testimony at that hearing. Surely he has a right to blog about the criminal charges against him.”

Think rmaxd managed to covert ybm, at least in regards to the police. Wonder how easy life would be for a financial consultant without those “law enforcement mercenaries,” and their “oppressive tactics,” though.

Ya gotta love it, really. All women (feminist or not) are worthless parasites (he knows this because a woman, Esther Vilar, told him so), gamers and “alpha males” are blind to their own oppression, and now even cops like buck are evil “law enforcement mercenaries.” Is there any group of people (male or female) ybm doesn’t hate? If this is what “emancipation” looks like, no wonder so many men are happy being “enslaved.”

That said, lots of respect for “learned” white people, but I get the feeling it’ll be a long while before they “desperate and disfranchised” enough to be dangerous. Life is good for such people at the moment, but more importantly, life has always been good for them–in tough times, that’s “comparatively” good, but still enough. Even in a depression, guys who can build bridges or cure diseases will be in demand, and making good money because of it. For such people, there’s not much point in arming themselves to overturn the status quo, even when things are bad.

I would disagree. I believe that we (men) have enough enemies already. No need to create new ones. I’d prefer to wait until specific individuals engaged in specific misandric activities before condemning them. Smearing a entire class of people with a broad brush seems to me to be the same thing that both gender-feminist and the Trad/SoCons do.

Agreed. The other problem is if good men refuse to do those jobs the problem becomes all the worse.

I don’t doubt for a second that there are out of control police out there, but in my own interactions with them they have always been professional. I even had a case when I was a long haired college kid when a rural sheriff deputy was following me for several minutes with lights and sirens before I noticed him and pulled over. He was a bit irate, but when I respectfully explained that I couldn’t hear the siren (the truck was loud, especially wind noise) and that he was so close he had totally disappeared from my mirrors he treated me very well. One police blog I’ve read from time to time is Second City Cop. It is interesting to see their take on what they are asked to do.

“Are you saying that we would be better off without the police to keep the criminal types from stealing us blind while we are at work?”

yeah, chief, the whole world teems with Criminal Types out to steal your money

hiding in the bushes, lurking and snuffling, just WAITING to deprive you of your next new toy

it’s so hard to guess your priorites in life! lol

“Next I suppose you’ll be trying to tell us that Game doesn’t exist, and even if it did, it wouldn’t work; or some such nonsense?”

wow all over the ball field aintcha?

your defenses (along with Mr. Mercy, ole Buck) of the vast wallet-stuffing, male-persecuting “criminal justice complex” of the u.s. rings as hollow as the men (and women) who staff that complex, crushing good men while pretending to “service”

slwerner, maybe you need to get some more leadership from your Prosecutor Wife who is ever so sensitive to the plight of american men (watch what happens in u.s. courtrooms, youll see how sensitive Ms. Prosecutor is towards boys and men — that’s why almost everyone in jail is M-A-L-E)

your JustSis Sistem is evil, and “cowardly vampires” is mild language to describe what’s being done to boys and men in it, so all the Wonderful Employees can have comfortable lives festooned with Many Excellent Purchases and Degreed Daughters who become the gulag’s new troops

bah

“I have policed by a motto my entire career…order through law, justice with mercy”

yeah i’ve seen exactly who your “laws” Serve and Protect and i dont like it

as for mercy, Buck-o, that is the business of GOD, not of you and your gyno-state, to give or to take away . . . and your arrogant assumption otherwise defines the problem far more clearly than anything i could write

Ray – ”yeah, chief, the whole world teems with Criminal Types out to steal your money”

You cab attempt to mock all you’d like, but there are people out and about who look to steal from others. Our home alarm has been twice triggered by such people trying to break in while we were away. Thankfully, the police did respond, and we were spared from substantial potential loss.

There is quite a bit of a sort of “incomplete thinking” by any number of people (in the Manosphere, and elsewhere) who fail to comprehend all of the positives that having regular law enforcement gains for society as a whole.

I;m not one of those “magical thinkers” who imagines that if society crumbles that I’ll somehow come out on top just because I own a number of guns. I, alone, or with just my family, even if armed to the teeth would be no match fro the roving gangs which would form if society were to be “freed” from our police oppressors.

The fact is that the vast majority of serious crime is male-on-male (not male-on-female, female-on-male, nor female-on-female) The apparent abuses of men by the criminal justice system (typically mandatory arrests resulting from DV allegations) are but a small percentage of all that the CJS deals with. And even much of that is due to very bad laws as opposed to this supposed desire by cops to inflict harm on men.

Prosecutors, like my wife, while not perfect, do prosecute women as well (and, more frequently now, as woman are engaging in more criminal activity). And, they convict them as well. Those disgraceful “pussy passes” come not from law enforcement, but rather from judges who chose to sentence women more favorably.

And, in case you didn’t know it, most DV charges are dropped (declined for prosecution), as it would be nearly impossible to get a jury to convict most men accused (only cases of real physical battery, with obvious and serious injuries get much attention).

As quick civics lesson for those of you with swallow understanding of the courts systems in America, there are four different types of courts: criminal courts, civil courts, appellate courts, and the badly misnamed family courts. These all operate as entirely separate entities, and often completely ignore the outcomes of one another as it relates to individuals who face some proceedings in more than one at a time. This is especially true of women abusing the courts in order to gain advantage WRT divorce and custody issues.

While they will first abuse the criminal justice system via a false allegation and request for an order of protection (routinely granted, even for men who ask for them against women), this is only done so that a record will be in place which the family court can (deliberately in most cases) misuse against me. The criminal charges are typically dropped for lack of evidence and lack of cooperation by the women who made the allegations, but the real damage is already done, as the family court will suddenly not care about dropped charges nor even rescinded orders of protection. They simply chose to proceed as though the men falsely charges have been convicted.

Of course, many men are righteously angry about this, but the fact is, it is not the fault of law enforcement. It is bad laws and even worse family law judges. Many who have an incomplete understanding of this mistakenly conflate these injustices against men with LE. This is likely due to the requirement that LEO’s enforce court orders. Individual LEO’s cannot simply unilaterally which court orders they believe are legitimate and which they will chose to enforce. If they tried, they’d be out of a job. They often know little if any of the pertinent facts of any given situation which results in a court order anyway.

Of course, they are the people who are most proximally engaged with enforcing injustices, so those who do not, or cannot think the situation entirely through will tend to naturally place most all of the blame onto those LEO’s unfortunate to draw the assignment. And, those most lacking in mental aptitude will also tend to be those who expand their angst at a select few individuals to encompass all of LE. “Fuck the cops” suggests to me very shallow thinking (ability) on the part of the person making the proclamation.

If our host thinks I’m trying to troll, he’s free to ban me…but judging by the fact that folks like slwerner and buck aren’t on your side either, seems like you’ve got yourself quite a few ‘trolls.’ Ever think it might be you?

hurp – “but judging by the fact that folks like slwerner and buck aren’t on your side either”

Just to be clear, I’m not trying to place myself on anyone’s “side”.

In most instance and on most issues, I am usually be in agreement with Rmaxd, ybm, and ray. It is solely on the issue of the disputed value of and level ofoppression of men which can be blamed on law enforcement on which we disagree.

I find it sad that otherwise rational guys have such blind spots of all too often misplaced anger towards an entire (very large) group of people (who happen to be predominantly other men), such that they are entirely unwilling to even consider that not even most men in LE are “like that”.

I fully acknowledge that LE has numerous issues which tend to align against men – bad policies, often owing to bad laws, a tendency to attract those men most prone towards imagining themselves as “White Knights” (on behalf of women, selectively), and even any number of rogue individuals – both fully corrupt cops, and those that are simply bullies armed with guns and backed by the power of the state.

But, I also am able to decipher that those “bad apples” are but a relative few compared to the vast numbers of men involved in law enforcement overall.

I don’t know the reasons why some men in the Manosphere are so hostile towards all men who happen to be cops, but, in my personal life the few religious cop haters I’ve encountered have tended to be actual criminals (felons who blamed LE for their having been caught and punished), or guys who harbor ill will towards (all) cops because they believed that they were not treated fairly (which, BTW, more-often-than-not involves believing that they didn’t deserve to be arrested for driving drunk, and that the cops must have it in for them because they didn’t let them continue to weave their way on down the road. I cannot say if it applies to any of the posters here, but guys I’ve know who have grudges over DUI’s seem to be the ones who expressed the greatest anger at LE).

Not to take the side for or against any individuals, I’m only expressing my support for most LEO’s and for the difficult jobs they must do. And to note that men like Buck serve to demonstrates that even LEO’s can be very strongly in favor of men’s rights and men’s protections under the law.

Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it’s hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke’s research shows.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported.

“It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.”

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

….Are you kidding me? So these girls are whoring it up at law school, you know, doing what they do best…but now you and I should have to pay for it.

Now I don’t know or care what you guys think of him, speaking for myself I generally consider Rush Limbaugh to be a neocon hack and I’ve never been a big fan of him, but when it comes to speaking out against feminist bullshit he’s one of the few in the mainstream media/political arena that has the guts to speak out against it. I had him on in my car the past couple days when he’s been talking about this, and this was how I found out about the story to begin with. I found myself nodding in agreement…I totally agree with what he is saying, and moreover, HOW he is saying it. He’s the only one who has the balls to call a spade a spade.

“What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

…Now if you ask me, is that not absolutely CORRECT? He’s right on the money….they are asking for us the taxpayers to be the pimps for these law school sluts.

So what is happening now? The Left is using this as a battle cry and is now launching an ad campaign called “the War on Women”. Because we don’t want to pay whores who aren’t having sex with us to have sex with someone else, we are apparently now declaring war on women…and health. What is so sickening is the fact that this isn’t even a HEALTH ISSUE even though they try to spin it that way. It’s A LIFESTYLE CHOICE. YOU CAN EITHER HAVE SEX OR NOT. If you’re too poor to afford a $1.00 condom then you shouldn’t be having sex, period. But no, we hate women if we refuse to pay for them to be sluts.

And so what is the Right doing? They are predictably backpedalling and distancing themselves from Limbaugh’s comments. Speaker of the House Boehner called his comments “inappropriate.” Santorum, who has been staunchly crtical about religious institutions being forced to fund contraceptives has shown his doubletalk and weakness on the issue when confronted with the BLUNT TRUTH of the matter. He said “Rush Limbaugh was being absurd.” He also put down his political influence by saying he is just an “entertainer.” Why is the so called right doing this? Because they are afraid of offending all mighty women and losing that all important feminist vote. This just goes to show how weak they really are, and for all their talk on the social issues, generally speaking they are no better than the left.All they care about is votes and public opinion.

Limbaugh is the only one who has had the guts to call these sluts out and apparently take on both the left AND the right. I totally agree with him when he says:
“If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. I’ll tell you what it is: We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
MarcusAurelius

Wife #1 had been a secret tramp for half of our 10 year marriage. During the divorce she was diagnosed with a Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Disorder, well backed up by her behavior. I tried everything in my power to save my sons. Her (Iformer) best friend testified to everything because she was disgusted and worried about her raising our two sons. There was evidence of drugs, “entertaining” a convicted armed robber in our home, etc., etc. In one exasperated moment her attorney said “Judge, I don’t care if she’s sleeping with the entire Tampa Bay Buccaneers, she’s the mother.” Meanwhile, I’m responsible, well educated, make good money, provably good father, and essentially raised them as she was always “busy with her friends.” I got crushed, lost everything, and ended up in bankruptcy.

20 years later, and another son, divorce #2 to a sociopath wife. I didn’t even f’ing try. She promptly married a psychopath, reputed murderer, put our son in mortal danger, almost killed her new baby and subsequently lost all parental rights. Consider these two women – and realize that you wouldn’t stand a chance against either one in court. Even if you’re an angel, they would have to be WORSE than these two examples for you to prevail in Florida. You don’t stand a chance.

And after you pay all of their shrink and attorney bills, alimony, child support, and hand over 2/3 of the assets (you get all the debt), … , that’s about the best you can hope for. You can’t bargain when you have zero power.

Rest assured, I get a chuckle out of Rmaxd and his ilk. I come from a very large extended family, I’m the only cop and many are on the other side of the law, so I hear this sort of rant pretty often.

I happen to agree with Rmaxd about much of what he says, and I too am no big fan of most cops.

America was designed for internal moral constraints(religion) and minimal government…I agree totally.

The foundation of American freedom is not free speech/religion/assembly…it is your right to own property…your stuff…without others (including government) taking it!
When you are secure in your “houses, papers and effects” then you are truly free. If you cannot afford to stand guard over your property 24/7, most civil societies hire guardians to assist in that function. You ask most cops, they’ll tell you, the prisons should be reserved for thieves and the violent only…not pot smokers, dui offenders and non-payment of child support cases…as a cop I LOVE arresting thieves, burglars, stick up men…why?…because I hate low life scumbags that would take someone elses property.
The fact that “the people” expanded the role of cops to include enforcement of civil processes, is a reflection of the people, not the cops!

Cops are the problem and the solution, kind of like women, you can’t live with them but can’t live without them (or at least most people can’t). You need cops to keep order in a civilized society because there are always barbarians at the gate trying their best to steal and destroy that which most people are working their butts off to build. The problem comes with modern views of what cops should be doing. In the old days a cops job was fairly simple as the laws that he was asked to enforce were basically the 10 commandments type of laws (steal, murder, etc.). Also, society knew enough to know when to turn a blind eye to cops harassing those “known criminal” elements so that they did not invade to far into places they shouldn’t be. There was also real physical requirements for any one that wanted to job of cop, HE had to be a rather large imposing dude that could handle himself without having to resort to lethal weapons. Granted even back then human nature ensured that there were corrupt elements in the police force but it usually didn’t involve ordinary citizens (well maybe the business community but not your average Joe on the street).

That was then, this is now. First we have more laws and regulations on the books than even cops can keep track of that invade every aspect of our lives. The laws are written and interpreted by feminized bureaucrats and the policy books that guide all cops behavior ensures that he’ll be required to arrest you every time some woman fingers you as the perp. Also there is no real physical requirements for him or HER so if they feel threatened then it is all too easy to grab the gun and make the threat go away. And despite what Buck says about the ease with which they can get fired that isn’t reality when it comes to most cases that I’ve seen. All the cop has to do is claim they were in fear for their lives and “poof” no charges. Also, pols have discovered that people will put up with one hell of a lot of fines without so much as a peep so now in addition to invading your personal life they get to act as revenue enhancement officers for the local government by writing tickets for $500 to every schmuck that they can tag. Throw in the out sized pension that they get at 50 and you’ve got a lot of resentment that is building up against cops by ordinary people. It is rapidly coming to resemble the relationship between cops and citizens that you’ll find in most third world nations. No one trusts cops any more mainly because the ordinary Joe now realizes that he, not some criminal, is the target.

Now add to that all the problems with marriage 2.0 and family court sending cops out to get all those evil deadbeat dads or wife beaters (or so she says) and you’ve got a real toxic soup that’s brewing. Eventually it will blow up in everyone’s face, and when it does I’m fairly sure that it will make things worse for everyone and not better as some on this board seem to think. Buck is right, we get the laws that the majority (or loudest minority) asks for, problem is the majority AND the loudest minority has been women (and their mangina enablers), they vote for this type of stuff because it emotionally feels right to them and also because they deep down realize that it gives them power over their significant other and any man that makes them feel bad. Three little numbers (911) and a little white lie is all it takes, and even the “good girls” inherently know this and resist calls to change it.

The problem that I see is that the manosphere is not all that organized and will never represent a majority of the men in society because those that have yet to be screwed by the system don’t believe those that have been through the grinder. They’ve been indoctrinated since childhood that girls are all sugar and spice and everything nice and that the western legal system in one of the fairest in the world and a beacon of light in the darkness. The corruption is starting to stink enough that the average Joe at some level knows something is wrong but not enough that anything will be done to correct it. It’s good to spread the word and try to save some small remnant from the hell that is marriage 2.0 but I doubt that you’ll ever be able to turn this rotten corpse of a legal system back to what it should be. As such I sit in hope that some few will be saved but look to the return of Jesus before I expect to see anything remotely resembling justice from the legal system.

Police who enforce immoral laws (mandatory arrests regardless of the evidence at the scene) may just be “following orders” – but can they really be excused for their collective enabling of unjust feminist law?

Some perspective on cops (That’s my dad in my profile pic.) Needless to say I have always naively admired cops, but things are changing. My sister just retired from a career as a fed, and I’m so glad she’s now out of it. I read several cop blogs, and yes, they ARE hamstrung by bad laws and worse management. (SisteFed once told me flat out – plenty of cops are on the WRONG side of the bars. This from a LEO who spent her career with real criminals with nothing to lose.) But here’s a newsflash: most cops absolutely despise women’s DV and slutwalker shenanigans. Go ahead and do a Google search. A few of them are pompous jackasses, but you might be surprised how much you have in common with most of them.

MOST cops have historically been good people and good cops, but incentives for bad cops are growing – one example, the DHS handing out billions of dollars worth of training and equipment for the sake of “preparedness” – everybody now has a SWAT team. If departments don’t use their teams, they can lose funding. None of these guys wants to be laid off, and the brass likes the glory. Egregious abuses of LE power are becoming more and more common, and the good cops HATE it. You all know far better than I do, how much money the government pours into misandry, so I won’t even go there.

Want to find good cops? Look into the Oathkeepers; they’re growing quickly, and so far, the direction they’re going is GOOD. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ The Southern Poverty Law Center has labelled them a “hate group,” which I consider a badge of honor. I’m pretty sure many of many of their members are SoCon white knights, but these men are educable, they defend the Constitution, they serve their institutions with a skeptical eye, and they have a degree of power. It’s always possible they’ll evolve into some variety of violent anarchists, but as yet, these are men you want “on your side.”

“I’m so sorry I have to enforce bad laws. I’m just doing my job” aint gonna cut it

it’s nothing to do with which are Good cops and which are Bad cops, that’s just another red herring, as is “anarchy will ensure” if the Team Woman, Global Police state doesnt keep expanding and standing on the necks of good men (yeah, slwerner, just keep telling yourself that anyone pointing out the sickness of your Porker Police State must be a “criminal”)

emasculated punk

no wonder you cowards and your Prosecuting Wives have to watch Law and Order Special Victims Unit reruns all night, to rationalize your self-serving predation on u.s. boys and men who cant defend themselves

yeah youre real tough guys allrightee, the strutting patricians of your soft harems, dont the grrls just LOVE it when you put anouther “criminal” in his place!

one Prosecuting Wife does more moral and material damage to this nation in a month than a dozen thieves do in their entire lifetimes

you will be called to answer before God for the profitable persecution of the sons of this nation (you too, Buck-o) so keep trotting out those weak rationalizations and keep double-dipping those fat fat paychecks as you grovel before your pathological, power-besotted Mistress

“The worst damage appeared centered in the small towns of southern Indiana and eastern Kentucky’s Appalachian foothills. No building was untouched and few were recognizable in West Liberty, Ky., about 90 miles from Lexington, where two white police cruisers were picked up and tossed into City Hall.”

SO,
one day I get a call of a big black guy in a McDonalds going from table to table of white people snatching food from in front if whitey, stuffing his mouth and laughing at them. This McDonalds is in a VERY liberal, police hating area of town, so as I’m arresting this knuckle head on signed complaints by the manager (protecting his patrons), I’m being scorned and pelted with food etc by police haters.
As I get the black guy into the squad car, a dredlock bedecked white college street agitator pushes past me to tell the black guy ” don’t worry bro, I’ll call Internal Affairs and tell them this cop beat you, we’ll get his badge”…to which the black guy responded “fuck you bitch” and kicked this hippy right in the head, exploding his nose all over his face, breaking his jaw and sending teeth flying…truly a thing of beauty. I asked Mr street lawyer if he wanted an ambulance, he flipped me off , so I left with the disorderly conduct arrest…a petty misdemeanor. Every time I think about this I get a smile…

When the husband makes a lot more than his wife, not only is the court highly likely to make him pay her attorney’s fees in periodic lump sum in advance retainer amounts, but it’s also going to make the husband temporary spousal support during the pendency of the hearing. The way it worked in my no kids divorce was upon her application before we’d even had an opportunity to answer more than the divorce complaint itself, the court simply ordered me to pay her attorney an initial lump sum retainer of 25K, plus a ridiculously high spousal support amount. We did manage to get the later reduced to much more reasonable amounts.

What this does of course is give the husband much more incentive to settle or excessively favorable terms to her. I did eventually figure out that our settlement offers would contain the proviso that all attorney’s fees I paid to her attorney would be deducted from the final negotiated property settlement, which helped considerably in incentivizing her to settle I think. That didn’t occur to me to insist on for quite awhile and I’m still pissed that my divorce attorney didn’t suggest it to me. We came to an agreement within a week or two of that communication.

In fact I harbored the suspicion that there’s often some sort of semi conspiracy among divorce lawyers on both sides to string the case out and milk the husband a certain amount in attorney’s fees for both sides, before getting more serious about getting a reasonable settlement.

Another aspect of settling divorce cases under color of law is that they are also settled under color of what judge you drew and his or her reputation with divorce attorneys. I remember my divorce attorney saying that I was lucky in that we’d drawn a somewhat reasonable and fair to husbands, as they go anyway, in our case. I could have drawn a whole heck of a lot worse he said.

So while the settlement is indeed the negotiation in the shade of law as Dalrock pointed out – it may be worth also pointing out that this is true for both parties, not just for a single party.

Yes, but since the law and family court are so heavily biased against men and in favor of women, a husband’s attorney’s predicting what a family court would likely do by NO MEANS creates a settlement outcome that most men feel is fair.

As well in case where he makes a lot more, he will have to pay her spousal support pendent litem as well as her attorney’s fees, which tilt the scales even more against him. So generally speaking men settle at even more advantageous to the woman terms than both lawyers pridict the courts will decide, since there are tons of transaction costs in going to trial.

All cops are evil, if the laws & rules & society they enforce are evil

I dont see Buck protesting the laws or doing anything to rectify them, he goes easy on men, big deal

His job depends on him toeing the line, & obeying orders first & foremost

At the end of the day, he belongs to a corrupt organisation, with a long history of violence & criminally corrupt

@Suz

Telling the truth isnt going off the deep end

Its cops like Buck who get called in to destroy men & their rights everyday

Corrupt & criminal laws are always carried out by corrupt & criminal organisations, theyre criminals, just like all cops, as always screw the police & the manginas not retarded enough to see how corrupt & depraved these pricks really are

1. In order to falsely obtain an arrest of another person on the accusation of DV, perjury must be committed.
2. Many, many lawyers advise female clients to commit that perjury in order to influence family court decisions.
3. Perjury is a crime.
4. Suborning perjury is also a crime.
5. A lawyer is an officer of the court.
6. A prosecutor is also an officer of the court.
7. Officers of the court have a duty to inform the court of crimes committed by other officers of the court. Thus attorneys have a duty to inform the court if a prosecutor is knowingly withholding exculpatory evidence. Similarly, prosecutors have a duty to inform the court of subornation of perjury.

Yet:
8. The number of lawyers accused of suborning perjury is close to zero.
9. The number of women even accused of perjury in order to obtain their desired false arrest for DV is likewise close to zero.

Therefore either I am missing something, or someone is not doing their job as required by the court, and basically looking the other way at crimes committed by lawyers.

” 1. In order to falsely obtain an arrest of another person on the accusation of DV, perjury must be committed.”

It’s only perjury if the lie is made under oath in open court (officially in session). Most arrest made for DV claim are based on the word of the (typically woman) claimant, who makes them to LEO’s (not officer of the court).

”2. Many, many lawyers advise female clients to commit that perjury in order to influence family court decisions.”

Women who make DV claims do not have a defense attorney – they are not being accused before the court of a crime. They do often get advice (usually in some indirect way so as to shield the attorney of provable unethical conduct) by their DIVORCE ATTORNEYS. Most divorce attorney do not also practice criminal defense.

”3. Perjury is a crime.
4. Suborning perjury is also a crime.
5. A lawyer is an officer of the court.
6. A prosecutor is also an officer of the court.
7. Officers of the court have a duty to inform the court of crimes committed by other officers of the court. Thus attorneys have a duty to inform the court if a prosecutor is knowingly withholding exculpatory evidence. Similarly, prosecutors have a duty to inform the court of subornation of perjury.”

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

However, in a typical arraignment of a defendant on DV charges, the prosecutor will typically have only seen a police arrest report, and only present to the court what is written in that report (two “layers” removed from the lie itself). The claimant may not even speak to the court. Even her request for a protective order can be presented without her uttering one word (the prosecutor simply notes that she is asking for the courts protection for a judge to issue one as a matter of routine).

At some point, I would almost imagine that feminist “women’s advocates” have seen to it that the process was set up so as to protect lying women from having to commit perjury in such cases (or maybe some hard-core white-knight female-pleasing & appeasing old men in positions of power are to blame).

The other thing that you need to consider is that perjury (a crime) must be proven. A prosecutor will often believe that a woman is flat out lying (they talk about this all the time) but unless they have some proof of it, they cannot represent to the court their suspicions.
And, here’s the kicker: even if facts are brought out (by the defense attorney) which lead the court to determine that the DV claim was a lie, the only crime with which the lying woman would be subject to be charged with is making a false report to police (a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. There is at least one state which enacted a law to provide specific and enhanced punishments for those who are convicted of lying about false crimes in relation to divorce and custody actions).

Again, the entire process would seem designed so as to avoid exposing women from getting caught lying to the court.

It’s no coincidence that so many women do not cooperate past the point of getting the guy arrested in the first place. If the case were to be taken to trial, then they would need to testify under oath, and would be subject to perjury charges should there be sufficient evidence that she was lying.

”Yet:
8. The number of lawyers accused of suborning perjury is close to zero.”
This would require not only the woman to accuser her own divorce attorney, but, in order to even make a the case, it would need to be provable that the attorney gave direct instruction to do so (as opposed to making some vague suggestions to the effect of, “In many situations, woman who’ve been abused can easily get court ordered protection and custody” – leaving it up to the woman to decide to do it herself (or so it could be effectively argued)).

”9. The number of women even accused of perjury in order to obtain their desired false arrest for DV is likewise close to zero.”

It is extremely unlikely that a case of DV-lies to get the upper-hand ever get to the point that the woman will lie under oath.

I know that is not a very satisfying answer, and the whole system certainly defies all common sense, but…

I’d imagine that Ray an only manage to focus on a limited range at any given time. There are certainly many injustices perpetrated upon men, and it’s true that in many of those case, the police will bear substantial responsibility (at least for cooperating without questioning). But, the entirety of all law enforcement actions against men accused of some violence against a woman – both real and fabricated – is but a small portion of all that LEO’s are tasked with. Actual male-on-male violence amounts to a much higher proportion of cases they will respond to.

It just requires a bit more to be able to get ones head around it (I suppose). And, of course, there are no tests for either IQ nor mental stability in order for one to participate on open forums on the internet.

Hopefully, the rest of us who engage in the Manosphere will not be judge by our number who imagine that God would target law enforcement with tornado’s just because two police cruisers were damaged. I, myself, simply cannot believe that God would kill dozens, including that 2 year old who was found 2 miles from where the rest of her family died just to send a threatening message to law enforcement.

Blind hatred for an entire class of individual seems to cause some serious detachment from reality for some.

Slwerner, thanks for the clarifying remarks. So basically, it’s no one’s “fault”, it just happens to be the way the legal system has been reconfigured over the last 30+ years. And it just happens to heavily favor women.

Quite a lot of damage was done when family court was made a court of fact rather than a court of law, it seems.

“AR: Slwerner, thanks for the clarifying remarks. So basically, it’s no one’s “fault”, it just happens to be the way the legal system has been reconfigured over the last 30+ years. And it just happens to heavily favor women.”

Where did he imply this? He made it clear how and why some of this “reconfiguration” has occurred. Were you hoping he could name names, so we’d have a few individual villains to crucify? He showed how quietly this has occurred, away from the light of day, one seemingly innocent decision at a time.

All cops are evil, if the laws & rules & society they enforce are evil

I dont see Buck protesting the laws or doing anything to rectify them, he goes easy on men, big deal”
Rmaxd,
Not that I need to justify myself to you or anyone else, but the fact is I have greatly harmed my career refusing to tow the feminist man-bashing line. I have been written up for insubordination for refusing to arrest the “man” simply because a woman supervisor decided the man is “always” the at-fault party in a domestic dispute. This stand on the law and principle has cost me dearly in time, money and career advancement. One of the reasons I’m no longer in the training unit is my insistence on failing women who did not measure up to the same standards imposed on men. I strictly adhere to the letter of the law, not the mythical “spirit” (read, man bashing) of the domestic violence law. I vote for constitutionalist politicians, I blog here advising men as best I can, I advise my male compadres to avoid marriage under the current legal threat, I make political contributions to right minded pols, I write letters to my elected officials, I’m raising a daughters to understand and respect men…I know there is no way you could be aware of any of this; which is what makes your personal attacks so defeating to a very important point you are attempting to make, that of systemic corruption.
Rmaxd, hatred blinds, believe me ,if you have a cop show up at your home on a domestic violence call you would thank your lucky stars it was me.
Note that I have not launched personal attacks on you or the other “fuck all cops”, “cowardly vampires” “evil cops” brigade. The smile I get from the story of the street agitator is the same smile you would get if an ex was hit my a falling coconut…ouch, that’s gotta hurt…hahaha. I understand your rage at the unfairness of a socialist Govt gone wild, and I know that street cops are the most common and available representation of hated Govt…I don’t disagree all that much.

Rmaxd, let me give you a bit of sage advice…this is truly from the heart ,..if she picks up the phone and calls 911…LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. If we get there and you are gone, it’s simply a report and refer-to-file ( usually she won’t follow through, because that requires effort). If you are there and she sees an immediate way to harm you …”he hit me, arrest him”…THAT she will do, don’t give her a freebie..
If you are so drunk or stupid that you stayed to tell the cops your side of the story, when the cop twitches his head in the gesture for you to walk away…WALK AWAY…we are trying to help you. I can stall a psycho woman for quite a while asking her meaningless questions, giving you time to pack up and go, but there is a limit.
When you are dating, ask her if she has EVER called the cops on a boy friend…if so… DANGER…!
Have a bail out plan. Money, clothes, couch to sleep on, just in case she goes psycho.